"Old Glory HYW Longbowmen Questions" Topic

Preamble then questions.

Recently I spent ~7 hours with 60 Old Glory early HYW Longbowmen cleaning them up ready to be based. These figures are really great. They're dynamic, have great individual, believable faces, I like the beards, and there are so many variations it's a bit incredible. It's like the good old days of Citadel.

Mine are shiny metal right now and make a lot of glare with pics. But to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, here are some I found painted by Eric of Eric's Days of Battle link:

In my enthusiasm for Longbowmen born of the labor I'm pouring into them I read Osprey's English Longbowman 1330–1515 by Clive Bartlett, and that raised some questions.

Now, let's look at the 60 I've got. Some of these figures jive with what I'm being told. 27 out of 60 in 5 variant sculpts to be exact. These 5 have mail aventails and basinets. 3 of 5 have padded gambesons, possibly over mail. 2 have brigandines fitted with metal plates. 1 has full leg armor and a 2nd one has knee armor. They all have a dagger and 4 have shields. 4 of 5 are clean shaven and 1 has mustaches. They have their arrows in bundles (2) or bags (3) at waist. So far so good.

The other 33 are a different beast. First off, the almost incredible thing. 33 figures and 32 variant sculpts. That's right, of these 33 that aren't like the ones above, there is only 1 pair of duplicates. Think about it. I bought these in 2 packs of 60. Both packs were a mix of type 1 and type 2. I'm not exactly sure what the mix of type 1 to type 2 was, but not matter how you split it, each pack had an entirely different (save for one guy) set of different variants. I can only speculate how that might happen. Maybe someone at old glory hand picked them for me to make sure they were different. Maybe they have two variant packs with the same code, this one with more or less set A of figures, and this one with set B. Whatever the reason, I'm so impressed with this I can't even tell you. It's awesome. Quality of sculpt is one thing, but honestly I think variation trumps that many times.

Ok, enough on that. Let's compare to above. First, no head gear. Bartlett: "When he was not wearing a helmet, an archer would invariably have put on a hat." No equivocation there is there!

All or nearly all have longish hair and 18 have full beards, and another three have mustache only. On this they might get a pass as Bartlett says: "English soldiers are virtually all shown as clean shaven but how often they shaved and whether there was any military stipulation is simply not known." When I read this the first time I came away with the impression that archers were clean shaven, but when I checked it to put it here I see in fact there is pretty wide latitude.

They have loose shirts and while some might conceal mail, some are v-neck clearly showing no mail beneath. Essentially, they look unarmored except for many have little bucklers hung from their waist belt on the left side. Some have swords or daggers and others don't.

Now, Bartlett talks of different grades of archers, the best and best-equipped being the household men, aka retainers. The five sculpts above might considered retainers of this sort until I read, "Warwick the Kingmaker once commented [in the 15th century] that that they were worth two ordinary archers." Honestly the way they are sculpted, 3 of 5 sculpts are actually less imposing than the bearded guys. With 10 figures of the other 2 sculpts that would leave me 10 figures, and perhaps 5:1 is an ok ratio of household men to other types?

Next up are the levy, "used to raise service in Wales, Scotland, Flanders and France." Notably, the levy aren't brought to the continent. They are bound by law (in our period, the mid to late 14th century) to only serve in England, Wales and Scotland. So far sounds like these guys might serve as levy archers. Ok, but shoot, I was planning to start out with games of chevauchée across the French countryside. And what about the lack of hats? That quote doesn't seem to exclude any types from the hat requirement.

Then there are mercenaries, which may be in an English army, though, "of course, not all English archers served English masters. Many sought employment elsewhere."

A couple of quotes that cast over the above. "A more accurate title for this book might be 'Archers of the English armies 1330-1515,' for those armies usually included considerable numbers of Welshmen and, what may come as a surprise, some Frenchmen.

And last one, "There are numerous contemporary illustrations of archers, but practically every one of them is done by a foreign artist in a foreign workshop."

So what do you guys think? How appropriate do you think these figures are to serve as:

* Household archers serving in France (all, only the helmeted ones or none)?
* English levy archers bound to the isles?
* Welshmen? Serving in France?
* Scots? Again, in France too?
* Other indentured men or Mercenaries serving on the continent?

Keep in mind, while contemporary portrayals don't look like these guys, all known pictures were drawn by people in other countries hearing or reading about English bowmen second or third hand. On the other hand, also keep in mind the lack of armor. Also, no headgear. Is that a deal breaker for them being any of the above?

And lastly, what do you think of the Old Glory late HYW longbowmen serving in the earlier period, possibly giving new helmets two one or two variants (I see one has a visored sallet)? I can see they are better-equipped and with a more uniform, military look. Picture courtesy the Santa Clarita Wargamer link:

Can you spot other flagrant anachronisms or might they do? That design of gambeson with square pads doesn't look like what I've seen of 14th century but maybe ok? Helmets other than the sallet? What we can assume to be cloth covering mail aventails?

Don't sweat the picayune details.
I think mediaeval uniform regs were not adhered to very much.
Think of how'd they'd look on campaign? Hats get lost.

You'd do everyone a favor if you put a black wash on them, took a decent picture, and posted it on the web.

Can't tell a thing from the pic on the OG website….

@Jamesonsafari: I hear you. I think for me it's more that I enjoy geeking out on details like these. For me it's actually fun to chase down things like this, and I think for some others too. :)

So am really looking forward to hearing what people think!

idontbelieveit: Yeah, the pictures on both the manufacturer site, oldglory25s.com, and the other site with pics, oldgloryminiatures.com, are both really, really out of touch with 21st century. I'll see what I can do but the wash route is a lot of work and I don't put anything beneath the primer, so I think what I'll do is take a pic of them primed. For knights I prime black but I know how to take a pic that still captures the form, and for figures where armor doesn't predominate I usually do at least a dark gray "zenithal" pass over black and sometimes a white one too. I'll see if Old Glory can use them too, they seem to need the help! At least that's my intention at present, in the meantime don't wait on me, I do everything in huge batches to get economies of scale, it's the only way I'll ever get there.

And anyway, that's why I hunted down painted examples for us all. It's a funny step in shopping OG for me, I have to hunt down examples with google images to actually see what I'll be getting. A pain in the butt, but also a funny sense of reward when you find one and say, aha, so that's what they look like!

Trying to nail down details for mediaeval armies is like nailing jello to a tree

There were no "regs" on uniform equipment. You brought your bow and original arrows. Any side arm was according to choice/availability. Armor even more so: most archers starting out had little to no armor, not even a buckler.

I think the ratio of 1/5 "retinue" archers with some armor and in livery is reasonable.

Padded armor was unchanged over the centuries. Differences in quilting patterns was as variable as the difference in smith work between villages would have been on weapons and pieces of armor.

Helmets arguably date a picture more than any other item of equipment. But an open-faced bascinet from early 14th century is only going to differ from a pig-faced, with the "pig" visor removed, of a hundred years later, in the most subtle ways, such as a flip to the lower edge, or the peak. A true sallet or barbute would date the bowman to the late HYW and WotR. But that wouldn't stop me from putting any and all of them on the table for any 14th or 15th century battle.

All books I read on 14th century medieval armies including all Ospreys, have tought me that additional to my existing knowledge about armour, clothing etc, it just has created more confusion on one side and on the other side it has confirmed my believe that armour from the first half of the 14th century easily survived into the end of the 14th century or even into the early 15th century.
Only wealthy noblemen could afford modern armour for their own. To equip their retinue with modern armour was a costly affair, only reserved to the wealthiest.

In an age of great armour transition like the 14th century the 2nd half of the century may confront you with all kinds of armour that had done service throughout the century, including great helmets and full mail. The latter however however disappearing during the 2nd half of the 14th century.

For common foot soldiers metal protection was partly available for retinues, depending of the wealth of its lord. Much armour consisted of booty.

As I'm building some Low Countries armies of around 1370, I welcome this discussion and are looking forward to other opinions.

LeDuc

@Duc: the full mail doesn't disappear in the 14th century, or even the first c. third of the 15th century, it gets covered up! Agincourt eyewitness accounts clearly describe full mail covered in almost cap-a-pie plate. It isn't till the mid 15th century that fully articulated, heat treated, steel plate armor becomes somewhat common. That cap-a-pie plate is without full mail underneath; the mail only showing as reinforcements at the joints.

Sometimes the UK site has some pics;
link

One of the US sites doesn't even list the archers!

@Great War Ace: Thanks for correcting. I actually referred to only mail-clad knigtht or men-at-arms without hardly any plate. Did they really survive into the late 14th and 15th century?
That gives several of my figures from early 14th century a longer life.
How about great helmets?

GWA is spot-on Duc. Very few MAA, even in the early 14th C were utterly bereft of plate. Great helms were already looking a bit dated by C.1300.
Lords in the 13/14th C did not equip their troops; the guys procured their own kit. You're Low Countries spearmen should be pretty well-equipped for armour – a mix of padded jackets//mail/helmets/armoured gloves. Remember that they are largely middle-class guys; they are the ones who have an obligation to serve and the money to get decent kit. In any medieval country the poor had an obligation too, but it they were hardly ever called out – largely 'cos they were n't much use.
Retinues is a thorny issue, but if you're looking at English armies infantry for home service are generally conscripted by the sheriff and those for service overseas are largely recruited by contractors.

Not a historical gaming guy but if I was wrestling with this I would say the helmeted figures represent household retinue archers in the British Isles, and in France, represent either the same, or veteran mercenaries who have acquired some equipment.

And the unhelmeted are levy for battles in the British Isles, but in France, are mercenaries who have not acquired any equipment yet.

Make your own hats out of putty or glue-soaked paper, or make up a story that this unit has a tradition of throwing their hats in the air as a battle cheer.

What do you mean by 'household retinue archers'?

Paid for by a noble family or directly by the Crown – i.e. NOT raised under a levy or a 'mercenary' contract

Provided by noble families is largely a feature of the WotR, though you might want to count in troops raised by contractors (indentures, especially for France), though sometimes a contractor might be providing MAA or archers or spearmen only.
Levy and mercenary are difficult terms; English troops were generally paid wages – however poor – and for 'home service' were enlisted/chosen by sheriffs or sometimes other administrative persons or as requirement from boroughs.
Even 'archer' could be a pretty loose term for those guys; draftees (for want of a better term) might just be issued with bows or spears at random if they did not have their own kit, though of course a good many would.
All in all, nobles – including the king – did not keep troops under arms beyond the very minimal requirements of castle security – but even in wartime – check out garrison rolls in CDS etc – garrisons were generally pretty small and were seldom absorbed into field armies.
I love the backstory idea of units chucking their hats in the air! I may have to incorporate it into a game sometime.

@ Uglyfatbloke: I thought great helmets were in use untill late in the 15th century.
There are several examples from Crecy and Poitiers.

Depends what you mean exactly but big cylindrical barrel-type helmets quickly lost popularity in favour of lighter and more practical bacinets. Big helmets were still useful for the tournament field and for great occasions – same as officers still carry swords and maybe even ride horses for parades and ceremonies. I'm guessing you meant 14thC rather than 15thC?
A Bacinet is pretty uncomfortable even if you've got a good fit, but there's nothing like wearing a whopping great steel drum (with rather poor visibility) for half an hour to make you think that – really – a bacinet is n't so bad after all. That said, there are artwork examples that seem to show people having a big bucket job to go over the top of a bacinet, but I can't quite visualise how that would have worked; it must have been incredibly awkward and I suspect that it was more an 'either/or' kind of thing.

Great to read people's thoughts on this.

Veering a bit from the topic of longbowmen but on the topic of the great helm there is consensus in miniature manufacturers and I've seen a few period illustrations that have at least one or a few men-at-arms wearing great helms for the HYW period. Perry, Harlequin, Front Rank, Claymore Castings and Old Glory all have a few. I also read Osprey French Armies of the Hundred Years War by David Nicolle last week (long plane travel for work, I actually got in 7 short books, 5 on the HYW) and it cites a reference to a helm in 1337 and suggests use declined after that. There's an Angus McBride plate of a "Southern French squire c 1340" wearing "old-fashioned" including a helm, but it has a visor and looks newer than those of some of my figures.

I remember reading recently but can't find the reference (might have been a reconstructionist/SCA type blog post) that said that reconstruction great helms for SCA as were shown were actually *thicker* and heavier than period ones, and yet were not very heavy, that the downside was rather visibility (I imagine mobility of head plays a part there, heat and difficulty breathing. I think it said the helms of the period were quite thin, but this is just one post I read, I've never held one extant or SCA.

CeruLucifus: three good ideas, thanks! I am the kind of guy that would make 60 hats but I've already got ~50 head swaps (of all types, not just archers) where I have to putty in a chainmail join. I'm also in the midst of doing hats for some of my 80's Bugman's dwarfs to set them apart and while fun and they look great, there I'm only doing 6-8, not anywhere near 60. So right now the throwing the hats up tradition seems to be winning out!

Next Old Glory order I make I plan to put in for the later archers, but in the meantime I may get a few packs of the Perry metal ones, especially the armored veterans, to be the household retinues.

Also, I found another good pic of the early Old Glory ones at the Northumbrian Wargamer blog link

You can clearly see the two types here.

Having a hat doesn't necessarily mean you have to wear it on your head, in battle, it would be quite permissible to remove it. Incidentally I don't often wear a soft hat for physical activity I.e. digging at work as it tends to creep down over my eyes. A hat with a brim might interfere with the bowstring.

My understanding is that the archers main advantage in a melee was being lightly equipped and therefore highly mobile. I may well be wide of the mark, but being dressed head to toe in armour might not be advantageous. Whether the man on the battlefield saw it that way was another matter entirely, logic and historical reality don't always dovetail.

The idea that armor was some kind of mistaken fad has to be wrong. Lighter armor in combat can be better, depending on the nature of combat. Individuals can pile on the armor and be far worse off than if they went light. A man who is unaccustomed to full armor would probably not benefit from it. But someone trained and accustomed to full armor will have the advantage over someone with little to none. The death knell of the cap-a-pie arms race was the gunne. If gunpowder had never been invented, we'd be wearing even more sophisticated full armor today. The arms race would be toward lighter and tougher. As it in fact is right now. Were someone to go back to the 15th century in a full kevlar outfit, dedicated to keep out arrows, he would be almost godlike; fast yet protected.